Politics
Still On Security Votes
When Mr Ibrahim Magu, the Acting Chairman, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), spoke at the induction programme for returning and newly-elected governors, he did not mince words in accusing governors of misusing security votes.
He alleged that some governors deliberately fuelled insecurity in their states just to collect more money as security votes.
He noted that some of the governors “now covertly promote insecurity as justification to inflate their security votes.”
Magu also alleged that there was a link between corruption, banditry and terrorism.
His allegations were contained in a paper, titled, “Imperative of Fighting Corruption/Terrorism Financing in Nigeria.’’
Magu told the session that a debate on the legality of security votes enjoyed by the governors was ongoing.
“We have also seen evidence of theft of public resources by some state governors, cashing in on the insecurity in their states.
“Insecurity has also offered the required oxygen for corruption to thrive as evident in the $2.1bn arms procurement scandal involving top military commanders both serving and retired.”
A study carried out by the University of Nigeria, agreed with Magu on the abuse of security votes.
The study is titled “Legitimising Corruption in Government: Security Votes in Nigeria.’’
It was authored by Obiamaka Egbo, Ifeoma Nwakoby, Josaphat Onwumere and Chibuike Uche, of the Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria.
“The tendency among Nigerian politicians, particularly the executive arm at the various levels of government, to manipulate security issues for political and economic gains is widespread.
“This has been fuelled by the abuse of security votes, an ‘opaque fund’ reserved for the executive which is not appropriated, accounted for or audited through the legislature.
“ Sometimes, a state governor could (mis)appropriate as much as N100 million monthly as security vote.
“Such slush funds are channelled into the secret funding of militias and gangs of government enforcers.’’
The appropriateness or otherwise of security votes was at the centre of discourse at the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) second Quarterly Anti-Corruption Policy Dialogue Series.
The dialogue focused on Accountability for Security Votes.
ICPC Chairman, Prof. Bolaji Owasanoye, who spoke, agreed with Magu that security vote is an easy and attractive route for stealing public funds.
According to him, it is also a veritable avenue for abuse of public trust, escalation of poverty and underdevelopment and ironically the escalation of insecurity.
“It has pushed up insecurity somehow, that is not to say we do not need security vote.
“In the 2019 budget as appropriated, for example, 162 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) had money appropriated for them as security votes.
“These MDAs span boards, centres, committees, ministries, commissions, councils, hospitals, schools, law enforcement agencies, obviously the armed forces and intelligence offices.”
Owasanoye said that the number and categories of MDAs given security votes, suggest that something was wrong with the parameters for determining those who are entitled to security votes.
“This then provokes some question as which MDAs are entitled to security votes and how should security votes be accounted for?
“It is clear from our present approach, that we do not have any rational principle being followed at the moment.
“If there is one, I will be happy that my ignorance will be diminished and removed,” he said.
The chairman explained that it was clear from the current approach to budgeting for security votes, that no principle was being followed.
He said that this is clear from the quantum and range of sums appropriated in the 2019 budget for MDAs, where the lowest amount for security vote was N3,600, while the highest amount was N4.20 billion.
“What on earth can anyone do with N3, 600, and I am not talking of an individual.
“If the N3, 600 is the security vote of an individual, most likely it will take him from somewhere to his house. That is the safest place to be.
“But what on earth can an agency do with N3, 600 as security vote, as appropriated?”
With this disparity, what then should security votes be used for?
Owasanoye opined that it was pertinent because MDAs with budgets for security votes also have separate budgets for other security related matters, such as the production or procurement for security or defence equipment.
“In the case of defence and core security and law enforcement agencies, some of these items and the votes are undoubtedly justified. But the quantum and use is open to scrutiny,” he said.
He, however, explained that it was apparent that security vote was not for any of those other security items mentioned, because they were often separately covered in the budget.
“There is the erroneous impression that security votes are not being accounted for with our recent experience as a country, that almost lost a geo-political zone to insurgency.
“Whereas billions of dollars were appropriated for security, but diverted by corruption to matters like engaging prayer warriors demands that we reflect very closely and ask ourselves whether we can afford to continue on the same trajectory of lack of accountability for security votes.
“We need security votes; we should give the votes to those who deserve to have security votes and we should demand some framework for accountability,” he said.
On his part, Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, said that security vote was subject to audit and “if it is not done, it is wrong”.
He said that the votes were not votes for defence and were also not meant for the armed forces.
“Strictly speaking, if you look at security votes in the true context, it is not meant to tackle insecurity.
“We have funding for Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. If you have budget lines for these services and organisations, then why security votes?
“However, it can be used for security; but it is not meant to solve insecurity,
“There are other votes which are constitutional which include the contingency fund,” he said.
Buratai explained that even though there was security vote that was generally applied, it must follow the Public Procurement Act 2007.
The chief of army staff said that if security vote was made constitutional and proper guidelines set out on utilisation, the issue will be laid to rest
Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State, described security vote as the budgetary or extra budgetary allocation ostensibly for security, received by the President, Governors and Local Government Chairmen.
This allocation he said, is spent without legal obligation to account for how it is spent.
Fayemi said that security votes have not been widely accepted by citizens, because of the assumption that such funds are being abused by state governments.
He said that the problem really is not about the security vote but about its usages and the character of the people administering it.
“Security votes attract more attention because of the seemingly non accountable nature of the expenditure under the budgetary provision.
“There is widespread belief that the appropriation of security votes in Nigeria is unconstitutional and thus illegal.
“This is not correct because in the Nigerian constitution, the executive is entrusted with the responsibility of preparing a budget which is then sent to the legislature for ratification.
“The fact that huge amount of monies are routinely being budgeted and expended in the name of security vote does not make it an illegal practice
“The act of approving any sum allocated to such a heading, covert or overt, legalises the concept. The insinuation that such money is not budgeted for is not true,” Fayemi said.
Like Magu said, the legality or otherwise of security vote is ongoing, and must continue until it properly defined. The earlier the better to avoid misuse and diversion of public funds in the guise of security vote.
Sharang writes for the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN).
Naomi Sharang
Senate has again approved a three-month extension implementation period for capital component of the 2025 Appropriation Act from June 30 to Sept 30.
This followed the adoption of a motion moved by Senate Chief Whip, Mohammed Monguno (APC- Borno) at plenary yesterday.
Monguno, moving the motion, said the extension became necessary given the unutilsed substantial funds released to Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) for implementation of projects under the 2025 budget.
According to him, delays caused by procurement processes, project implementation challenges and administrative procedures had slowed the execution of several critical government projects.
Monguno said many strategic projects across key sectors of the economy were already at advanced stages of completion and required additional time for execution, certification and payment.
“Failure to extend the implementation period of the 2025 Appropriation Act may result in the abandonment of critical projects, the wastage of already committed public resources and the disruption of ongoing government interventions,” he said.
He argued that some allocations contained in the budget might not be accommodated in subsequent appropriation cycles if the implementation window expired.
This, he said would create funding gaps and ultimately undermine development objectives.
He said that extending the validity period of the budget would improve budget performance, facilitate the efficient utilisation of released funds and support economic growth.
“Granting a further extension of the implementation period is in the national interest and will ensure value for money in public expenditure,” he said.
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Sen. Solomon Adeola (APC-Ogun), supporting the motion, explained that the extension was specifically targeted at the capital component of the budget.
According to him, when President Bola Tinubu presented the 2025 budget to the National Assembly, there is an understanding that 30 per cent of the budget implementation will be completed by March 31, while the remaining 70 per cent will be rolled into the 2026 budget.
Adeola said that the implementation timeline was not fully achieved, prompting the National Assembly to earlier extend the budget’s lifespan to June 30.
“While we were passing the 2026 budget, due to the non-implementation of that promise, we were forced to extend the budget to June 30,” he said.
He said although payments had commenced, significant obligations remained outstanding.
“There is a need to extend this budget beyond June 30 to September 30, by then, we are hopeful that the outstanding 30 per cent will have been paid in full, while implementation of the components transferred to the 2026 budget can commence.”
Adeola urged senators to support the extension to ensure proper implementation of projects and prevent disruptions to government programmes.
Sen.Victor Umeh (NDC-Anambra), who seconded the motion cited the need to sustain the execution of projects captured under the 2025 Appropriation Act.
“In view of the need to sustain the continued execution of the projects covered in the 2025 Appropriation Act, as amended, I hereby second the motion,” Umeh said.
Following deliberations, Senate President Akpabio put the proposal to a voice vote and it was overwhelmingly adopted by the lawmakers..
Akpabio in his remarks said the decision was necessary to prevent interruptions in payments and project execution.
“The payment would have stopped halfway if this was not done,” he said.
The Senate President commended the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and other lawmakers involved in handling the matter.
He directed that the Senate’s resolution be transmitted to the executive for implementation.
“Accordingly, the resolution of the Senate is being communicated to the Executive that the 2025 Appropriation Act has been extended to Sept 30.
The National Assembly had earlier extended the implementation period of the 2025 budget to June 30, following delays in the release and utilisation of capital funds.
Senate, thereafter, adjourned plenary to July 7.
The member representing Sagbama/Ekeremor Federal Constituency of Bayelsa State, Frederick Agbedi, yesterday emerged as the new Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
Agbedi’s emergence follows the resignation of former Minority Leader, Kingsley Chinda of Rivers State, who recently defected from the Peoples Democratic Party to the ruling All Progressives Congress, creating a vacuum in the leadership structure of the opposition caucus in the Green Chamber.
His nomination was contained in a letter transmitted to the Speaker of the House, Tajudeen Abbas, by the minority caucus during plenary, yesterday.
In the letter, the caucus announced that its members had reached a consensus on the replacement of vacant principal offices allocated to opposition parties in the House.
Abbas, while reading the letter said, “The election of the House of Representatives, Federal Republic of Nigeria, the minority members of the 10th Assembly hereby unanimously nominate the following members by consensus to fill the vacant positions of the minority in the parliament.
“Number one is the Minority Leader, Hon Frederick Agbedi.
“Number two is the position of minority whip, and the person they have endorsed is Hon Mansur Soro (APM, Bauchi).
“The last but not the least is my brother from the North-West, Hon Abdussamad Dasuki (ADC, Sokoko) for the position of Deputy Minority Leader.
“Honourable colleagues, today the body of principal officers is complete, and I want to seize this opportunity on behalf of the whole entire House to congratulate the three people and to wish them all the best in their new positions.”
With the development, Agbedi assumes the responsibility of coordinating opposition lawmakers in the House and articulating the position of minority parties on legislative matters before the chamber.
A ranking lawmaker and one of the longest-serving members of the House, Agbedi has represented Sagbama/Ekeremor Federal Constituency since 2011.
His appointment is expected to strengthen the voice of the opposition caucus at a time when defections and realignments continue to reshape the political landscape ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Also announced was the emergence of Hon Mansur Soro of the Allied Peoples Movement as Minority Whip and Hon Abdussamad Dasuki of the African Democratic Congress as Deputy Minority Leader, completing the minority leadership structure in the 10th House.
Speaking after the announcement, Abbas congratulated the newly appointed principal officers and pledged the cooperation of the House leadership.
“The leadership of the House will work with them assiduously in ensuring that we achieve our legislative agenda objectives of this very important 10th Assembly,” he added.
The emergence of the new minority leadership comes amid recent changes to the House Rules governing the selection of principal officers. The amendments, which introduced fresh eligibility requirements, have generated debate within opposition ranks and influenced the contest for key leadership positions.
Shortly after the announcement, a lawmaker from Imo State who had been nominated for the position of Minority Leader last week, Ikenga Ugochinyere, formally withdrew from the race.
He cited the amended House Rules and the new eligibility criteria for principal officers as the basis for his decision.
The latest appointments are expected to restore stability within the opposition bloc following weeks of uncertainty triggered by Chinda’s defection and the subsequent scramble for leadership positions.
Political observers believe the new leadership team will face the immediate challenge of forging unity among lawmakers drawn from different opposition parties while providing effective legislative scrutiny of the executive and the ruling APC-dominated parliament.
For the PDP, which remains the largest opposition party in the House despite recent defections, Agbedi’s emergence is seen as a strategic move aimed at maintaining cohesion within the minority caucus and strengthening its influence in parliamentary proceedings.
In a letter titled, “An Open Letter to Former President Goodluck Jonathan,” the observer said Dr Jonathan should be careful not to allow himself to be drawn into partisan calculations driven by ambition rather than national interest.
He cautioned the former president against allowing himself to be used by what he described as desperate political interests.
“I believe this is the time to protect the good name and legacy you have built over the years. You should not allow yourself to be used by desperate political elements who may be more interested in their own ambitions than in the future of Nigeria,” the letter read.
The Social Commentator further warned Dr Jonathan to be wary of those advocating for his comeback, claiming many of them were previously opposed to his administration.
“Many of those calling for your return today were your antagonists, those who frustrated your government back then. You should be careful not to become a pawn in a game designed by others or else they will stain your white with their ‘roforofo’,” he said.
He maintained that Dr Jonathan’s legacy remains defined by his decision to concede defeat in 2015, which he described as a landmark moment in Nigeria’s democratic history.
“Your legacy was built through years of public service and your decision to put the country’s peace above personal ambition at a critical moment in Nigeria’s history. That legacy should not be put at risk because of the desperation of a few politicians,” he added.
Mr Adenuga also alleged that some of the promoters of Dr Jonathan’s return have lost credibility in the public space.
“The truth is that some of the people pushing you to contest have already damaged their own reputations. They should not be allowed to stain your legacy with their soiled hands. What they could not achieve on their own should not be pursued through your name and goodwill,” he stressed.
He concluded by urging the former president to remain above political manoeuvring and protect his place in history.
“History has been kind to you. Preserve that honour and remain above the political games of those who want to use your name for their own purposes,” he wrote.
Recall that former President Goodluck Jonathan recently emerged as the presidential candidate of the Kabiru Turaki-led Interim National Working Committee of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) following a special convention held in Abuja, where delegates ratified his nomination ahead of the 2027 general elections.
-
Nation2 days ago
Asarama Kingdom Condemns Gruesome Murder of A Commercial Vehicle Driver
-
Rivers2 days ago
Monarch Raises Alarm Over Defamatory Politics … Urges For Unity In Ogoni
-
News2 days ago
Nigeria, Ethiopia Seal Agreement To Transfer 100 Nigerian Prisoners
-
News2 days ago
Nigeria No Longer Safe For Drug Cartels – Marwa
-
News2 days ago
Xenophobia: 268 Nigerian Returnees Arrive In Lagos From S’Africa
-
News2 days agoFG Declares Today Public Holiday To Mark Democracy Day
-
Women2 days ago
Nigerian Women And Dividends Of Democracy
-
Business2 days ago
FG Approves $1 Bn AFCFTA Credit Facility For Nigerian Exporters